Anthony Waterman wrote: > What is 'methodological individualism'? As I understand it, it is the > working assumption that human social phenomena may be explained without > remainder as the outcomes of action by individuals: and that any additional > explanans (e.g. 'collective' plans, intentions etc., 'laws of history', > 'general will' and so forth) are redundant. > [snip] > Why are we quarrelling about this? And how could it possibly need a defence? My impression of the discussion over the working assumption of individualism is about the degree to which 'the individual' is taken as sui generis. Anthony Giddens addresses the question in "Critical Notes: 'Structural Sociology' and Methodological Individualism,"_The Constitution of Society_ (207-221); his structuration theory is an effort to think through the relationship between the individual and social structures. A football team is a good illustration, I think, of how imbrication in social structures involves a collective intention. The form of the intention of the team is supplied by the rules of the game, the techniques of play, etc. A team only becomes actualized, though, when the individuals fully take on the team's intentions (to gain yardage, score touchdowns, etc.) as being also their own personal goals to the extent that they act as players to do what is necessary for the game. What "collective" means in this usage is "shared"; it is not a group mind in an organic sense, but in a communicative sense of the players' interactions with each other. It's a type of division of labor for a common purpose. Paul Turpin